Penalty Enforcement Revisit

[BetweenTheLines]

4/7 B13 Kicker A1 attempts a FG from the B21. The kicked is blocked and the ball rolls to the B3 where B15 picks up the ball takes 2 steps then fumbles where the ball deflects off of A8. A8 had previously stepped on the sideline at the B9 and then reestablished back inbounds. B2 recovers the ball at the B1 with his knee on the sideline. Ruling?

I'm sorry guys to have to revisit this thread but I don't believe this scenario has been solved fully. If A8 returns inbounds prior to the end of the kick(when B15 picks the ball up) then this would satisfy the 10.4.2 exception. B would have options. Take the ball and have the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot in this case the B1 making it first and 10 for B at the B16. Or since this happened during a loose ball play assess the penalty using the all but one principle and the previous spot as the basic spot. If for some odd reason A8 returned to the field of play behind the previous spot (B13 in this case) then the 15 yards would be marked off from there, this is why a flag is to be thrown where he returns all the while knowing when he did it also. If A8 returns to the field of play post possession then the window of enforcement is from the time B15 picked up the ball at B's 3 to the time the play is whistled dead because the ball went out of bounds(no recovery). This scenario does not satisfy the 10.4.2 exception so the illegal participation would be assessed from 2 steps from the B3 where he fumbled(end of the run). The second time frame (post possession) scenario is all the while dependent upon whether or not the covering official deemed that A8 went out of the field of play intentionally, as the restriction (A or K going out of bounds = illegal participation) was lifted after B15 picked up the ball(end of kick). This is why it is critical the we know when and where in this instance A8 did what he did, or dun what he dun. Now grab the mic and announce this to every one in the stands who might think that they are a qualified ********!

[Magician]

If he went out after B gained possession of the kick he's not guilty of IP unless he does it intentionally and does something there to influence the play (i.e. touch the ball to make sure it's OOB). If he went out of bounds intentionally and then does nothing more than come back in, the fact he was OOB is no longer relevant. The intentionally going out of bounds is a very rare and very specific situation that doesn't apply here. Keep in mind the reason for the restriction of K going OOB prior to the end of the kick is to prevent him from using the OOB space to get around blockers for coverage. Knowing the WHY can be very helpful in understanding the intent of the rule and when to worry about enforcing it. In the play you described you only have IP if he went OOB prior to end of the kick. I wouldn't split hairs if he returns just after possession. He went OOB while trying to get downfield during the kick. If he was OOB so long there was a noticeable period of time after possession, then I would still have IP because he violated the intent of the IP rule for K. Give R the options of previous spot (they may in this case because they aren't getting great field possession and K may not have a kicker capable of making a 47-yard FG) or the succeeding spot. If you are absolutely certain he came back during the return or while the ball was loose after then go ahead with the end of the related run. The likelihood of the covering official knowing the time of all that and when the runner came back in is unlikely since it's all happening on different parts of the field and in a very short period of time.

[NVFOA_Ump]

But as noted in the related thread and detailed here in the re-posting, the intent of the player OB, the timing of the player OB, and the timing of player possession are all very important here and are key in determining if and when we have a flag. The play scenario here is a bit tough to visualize as I picture the blocked FG heading toward the sideline near the EZ with multiple players in chase mode all in the vicinity of the loose ball and A8 somehow "stepping on the sideline" and immediately coming back inbounds.

As Magician notes "The likelihood of the covering official knowing the time of all that and when the runner came back in is unlikely since it's all happening on different parts of the field and in a very short period of time."

I still can't picture having a flag on the play as I see it unfolding.

[bossman72]

That dumb IP rule needs to go.

[ilyazhito]

I agree. I have no idea what purpose that rule serves.

[Magician]

I agree. I have no idea what purpose that rule serves.

The purpose is so the kick coverage team can't use the out of bounds space to beat the blocks getting downfield. Not as critical on a blocked FG attempt which is why I think philosophy has to come into play here.

[Ralph Damren]

Sometimes we "overlook" a hold on the opposite side of the field from the play. Sometimes we might "overlook" the potential flag on this posted topic. The rationale of intent for IP on B is that it can occur when a diving tackle attempt is missed near the sidelines with the defender hitting OOB after missing and then returning to action. Magician nailed the reason for flagging K is to prevent K for running in an OOB "safety zone" to pursue coverage. Our rules are written to promote safety and fairness ,not to look for fly poop in the pepper shaker.

[fudilligas]

Sometimes we "overlook" a hold on the opposite side of the field from the play. Sometimes we might "overlook" the potential flag on this posted topic. The rationale of intent for IP on B is that it can occur when a diving tackle attempt is missed near the sidelines with the defender hitting OOB after missing and then returning to action. Magician nailed the reason for flagging K is to prevent K for running in an OOB "safety zone" to pursue coverage. Our rules are written to promote safety and fairness ,not to look for fly Junk in the pepper shaker.

isn't this a case of common sense intent of the rule officiating vs "gotcha" officiating....i have seen too many games ruined by officials with the "gotcha" attitude....give me common sense official everyday

[prab]

isn't this a case of common sense intent of the rule officiating vs "gotcha" officiating....i have seen too many games ruined by officials with the "gotcha" attitude....give me common sense official everyday

Common sense is in the eye of the beholder.  We all agree that common sense should be a given.  HOWEVER, we seldom agree on the definition of common sense.  Write the rules the way you want them to be enforced.  Then, don't complain when someone calls it the way it was written. 

In 2010, the rules stated that the hash marks bisect the yardlines.  Last year the tack on provisions for kicking plays said during the kick down instead of during the kick.  Common sense says that both of those rule changes, as actually printed in the rule book, were not what was intended.  However, as discussion on this forum indicated, each of us was left to determine what "common sense" meant, without guidance from the NFHS. 

So, don't condemn an official for calling it as written just because you think common sense says you wouldn't have.

[NVFOA_Ump]

So, don't condemn an official for calling it as written just because you think common sense says you wouldn't have.

I don't think most of us would "condemn" any official for a judgment call like the one being discussed here, but maybe offer some advice for future calls?  The condemnation may come from our supervisors though?

[AlUpstateNY]

I don't think most of us would "condemn" any official for a judgment call like the one being discussed here, but maybe offer some advice for future calls?  The condemnation may come from our supervisors though?

The 2018-19 NFHS Game Official's Manual cautions, "Game Officials must have a football sense which supersedes the technical application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly.  Game Officials are expected to exercise good judgment in applying the rules." 

I believe it was Coach Lombardi who suggested, "the pursuit of absolute perfection should not be allowed to ignore consistent excellence" (or words to that effect.)

[Curious]

The basketball analogy (advantage/disadvantage) is appropriate in this posted situation:

Did A/K gain an advantage not intended by the rules; or was B/R placed at a disadvantage? Yes =  ; if not, = no flag

[bbeagle]

Did A/K gain an advantage not intended by the rules; or was B/R placed at a disadvantage? Yes =  ; if not, = no flag

That has no bearing at all on so many scenarios in Football.

Two men in motion parallel to the line and towards each other before the snap, both looking back at the QB. They run into each other and fall down as the ball is snapped. The ball goes to the QB who has no clue what to do as he was supposed to shuffle-pass to the player in motion. The QB stands there and gets sacked. Flag or not for illegal shift?

Did A/K gain an advantage? No. Is there a flag? HECK, yes. You won't be working long as a side official if you don't throw that flag.

[Curious]

That has no bearing at all on so many scenarios in Football.

Two men in motion parallel to the line and towards each other before the snap, both looking back at the QB. They run into each other and fall down as the ball is snapped. The ball goes to the QB who has no clue what to do as he was supposed to shuffle-pass to the player in motion. The QB stands there and gets sacked. Flag or not for illegal shift?

Did A/K gain an advantage? No. Is there a flag? HECK, yes. You won't be working long as a side official if you don't throw that flag.

Easy there Beg, I was talking only about the scenario  in the original post - not EVERYTHING...Not sure what the "two men in motion" play has to do with the sideline concern.   

[Magician]

That has no bearing at all on so many scenarios in Football.

Two men in motion parallel to the line and towards each other before the snap, both looking back at the QB. They run into each other and fall down as the ball is snapped. The ball goes to the QB who has no clue what to do as he was supposed to shuffle-pass to the player in motion. The QB stands there and gets sacked. Flag or not for illegal shift?

Did A/K gain an advantage? No. Is there a flag? HECK, yes. You won't be working long as a side official if you don't throw that flag.

Fouls generally fall into 3 categories: Safety, procedural, and advantage/disadvantage. Sometimes there is crossover, but for the most part they fall into these 3. IP is an example that could cross over. Illegal shift is generally procedural, but if the gap between the shift stopping and the motion starting is a hair less than 1 second you let it go because they aren't gaining a huge advantage. But in your example of illegal shift it's clearly a procedural violation so you get it. The IP from the original post is clearly advantage/disadvantage so officiate it as such.

[Ralph Damren]

A wise ole' ref once told me, when I was a young  wide-eyed wingman, his opinion on procedural calls : "Son, if most of the crowd saw the foul, flag 'er . If ya' the only one that saw it, best keep that secret to yourself  . Don't be a  cop  who would give a ticket for going 26 in a 25  !"

[Magician]

A wise ole' ref once told me, when I was a young  wide-eyed wingman, his opinion on procedural calls : "Son, if most of the crowd saw the foul, flag 'er . If ya' the only one that saw it, best keep that secret to yourself  . Don't be a  cop  who would give a ticket for going 26 in a 25  !"

Generally yes, but it depends on the situation. For example I had a play with two players wearing the same number. In this case the opponent's sideline noticed it and screamed which helped me see it, but if you catch that you probably want to get it. I also had an illegal bat once on a play where the kicking team tried a pooch kick that was going out of bounds. The kicking team member dove and knocked it back in bounds where it was recovered by a teammate. Nobody who saw it realized it was a foul. Some even argued after he could do that.

But yes, in general this is a good mantra for advantage/disadvantage fouls.

[HLinNC]

 had a play with two players wearing the same number.

Had that once, long ago.  I remember saying to myself "#15 hands off to ....#....15??!!  WTH?!"  Flagged it.  My WH told me it was a "good get".  Others thought not because it was garbage time subs.

[Magician]

had a play with two players wearing the same number.

Had that once, long ago.  I remember saying to myself "#15 hands off to ....#....15??!!  WTH?!"  Flagged it.  My WH told me it was a "good get".  Others thought not because it was garbage time subs.

Garbage time subs I probably just give the coach a heads up. But it's one of those that's hard to pass up when you actually do see it because it may be your only chance ever!

[Ralph Damren]

Garbage time subs I probably just give the coach a heads up. But it's one of those that's hard to pass up when you actually do see it because it may be your only chance ever!

Free kick after fair catch trumps teammates playing with the same number, and most other oddities, on my bucket list  .

[Magician]

Free kick after fair catch trumps teammates playing with the same number, and most other oddities, on my bucket list  .

You have that one. Although it's much easier for a team to create the duplicate numbers than the free kick after a fair catch. So many things have to be lined up for that to happen.

I had not seen an illegal bat in a game until last year and we had it twice! We also had our first illegal forward handing. Not surprisingly all of them happened on free kicks!